Abstract
Three experiments are reported in which laboratory rats were allowed to make a barpress response incompatible with the reinforced barpress response. This opportunity to make an interfering response did not generally reduce resistance to extinction, and the interference theory of extinction was therefore not supported.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
ESTES, W. K. Effects of competing reactions on the conditioning curve for bar pressing. J exp. Psychol., 1950, 40, 200–205.
ESTES, W. K. Stimulus-response theory of drive. In Jones, M. R. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1958.
GUTHRIE, E. R. The psychology of learning. New York: Harper, 1935.
MARX, M. H. The need for more specific formulations of the “competing response” interpretation of extinction. Psychol. Rep., 1963, 12, 729–730.
MARX, M. H. Resistance to extinction as a function of delay of reinforcement and the opportunity to retrace in the runway. Psychon. Sci., 1967a, 8, 287–288.
MARX, M. H. Increased resistance to extinction as a function of the opportunity to retrace in the runway. Psychon. Sci., 1967b, 9, 397–398.
MARX, M. H., TOMBAUGH, T. N., HATCH, R. S., & TOMBAUGH, Jo W. Controlled operant conditioning boxes with discrete-trial programming for multiple experimental use. Percept, mot. Skills, 1965, 21, 247–254.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Note
1. This research was supported in part by Grant HD-00895 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and by USPHS Research Career Award 1-K6-MH-22, 023 from the National Institute of Mental Health.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marx, M.H. An experimental test of the interfering-response theory of extinction. Psychon Sci 10, 233–234 (1968). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03331496
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03331496